EPIDURAL ANALGESIA FOR LABOUR IN ARMED FORCES HOSPITALS: A PRELIMINARY STUDY TO ASSESS FEASIBILITY AND ACCEPTANCE.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Agashe AK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5529884 | biostudies-other | 1995 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN:Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING:15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION:Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS:1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION:In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.
| S-EPMC4353278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate the obstetric and psychological characteristics of women who opt to use epidural analgesia (EDA) during labour and the impact of participating in labour preparation courses on women's decisions to use EDA.Longitudinal cohort study.Akershus University Hospital, Norway.2596 women with singleton pregnancies and intended vaginal delivery.Data were collected using two self-completed questionnaires at pregnancy weeks 17 and 32. Fear of childbirth was assessed by the Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (W-DEQ). Symptoms of anxiety were measured by the Hopkins Symptom Check List (SCL-25) and depression by the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Obstetric and socio-demographic information was retrieved from birth records at the maternity ward.Preference for EDA was indicated by the questionnaire item "I would prefer an epidural regardless" on a 4-point scale (1 = highly agree, 4 = highly disagree) at pregnancy week 32.Twenty-one percent of the women (540/2596) answered that they would choose EDA as the only alternative method of analgesia during labour. Counselling for fear of childbirth [OR 3.23 (95%CI 2.12; 4.92)] and W-DEQ sum score ? 85 [OR 2.95 (95%CI 2.06; 4.23)] were significantly (p<0.001) associated with choice of EDA. Participation in labour preparation courses was significantly (p = 0.008) associated with a reduction of intended use of EDA during labour [OR 0.67 (95%CI 0.49; 0.90)].Fear of childbirth is significantly associated with women's choice of EDA during labour. On the other hand, women that participate in labour preparation courses would rather consider other methods of analgesia during labour.
| S-EPMC5646833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore whether an ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block (PNB) could decrease anaesthetic use, thereby shortening the length of the second stage of labour in women undergoing epidural analgesia.DesignProspective, single-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.SettingAn obstetric centre in a general hospital in China.Participants72 nulliparous women were randomised, and 71 women completed the study.InterventionAn ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB was administered to all study participants; the PNB group were given 0.25% ropivacaine 10 mL, while the control group were given 10 mL saline.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was the duration of the second stage of labour. Secondary outcomes included additional bolus administration, total hourly bupivacaine consumption, difference in thickness between the contracted and relaxed rectus abdominis muscle before (DRAM1) and 30 min after (DRAM2) PNB, urge to defecate, maternal cooperation, preservation of the lower limb motor function, tightness of the perineum, and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score for pain.ResultsThe duration of the second stage of labour was shorter in the PNB group than in the control group (difference of 33.8 min (95% CI 15.6 to 52.0), p<0.001). Additional bolus administration and total hourly bupivacaine consumption were lower in the PNB group than in the control group (p<0.001). DRAM2 was greater (p<0.001), rate of parturient women with the urge to defecate was higher (p=0.014), maternal cooperation was superior (p=0.002), and lower limb motor function preservation was greater (p=0.004) in the PNB group relative to the control group. Tightness of the perineum was eliminated from the results due to the inconsistent application of the criteria by the nursing staff. There was no significant difference in NRS scores between the groups.ConclusionsNulliparous women with epidural analgesia who received an ultrasound-guided bilateral PNB may reduce their need for bupivacaine and consequently shorten the length of the second stage of labour, therein indicating that a bilateral PNB may serve as an additional effective adjunct method of labour analgesia.Trial registration numberChiCTR-IOR-16009121.
| S-EPMC7449485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the costs of a strategy of patient controlled remifentanil versus epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour.DesignWe performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, the RAVEL trial. Costs were analysed from a health care perspective alongside the RAVEL trial.PopulationPregnant women of intermediate to high risk beyond 32 weeks gestation who planned vaginal delivery.MethodsWomen were randomised before the onset of labour, to receive either patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia when pain relief was requested during labour.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome for effectiveness was satisfaction with pain relief, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC). A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Here, we present an economic analysis from a health care perspective including costs from the start of labour to ten days postpartum. Health-care utilization was documented in the Case Report Forms and by administering an additional questionnaire.ResultsThe costs in the patient controlled remifentanil group (n = 687) and in the epidural group (n = 671) were €2900 versus €3185 respectively (mean difference of -€282 (95% CI -€611 to €47)). The (non-significant) higher costs in the epidural analgesia group could be mainly attributed to higher costs of neonatal admission.ConclusionFrom an economic perspective, there is no preferential pain treatment in labouring intermediate to high risk women. Since patient controlled remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to AUC for satisfaction with pain relief we recommend epidural analgesia as the method of choice. However, if appropriately counselled on effect and side effects there is, from an economic perspective, no reason to deny women patient controlled remifentanil.
| S-EPMC6181333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral randomised controlled trials show that maintenance of labour epidural analgesia with programmed intermittent epidural bolus reduces the maternal motor block compared with maintenance with a continuous infusion. However, these trials were usually restricted to healthy nulliparous parturients. To assess the generalisability of these randomised controlled trials to 'real-world' conditions, we compared maternal motor function (modified Bromage score) over time between healthy nulliparous and parous women using routinely collected quality-control data.MethodsAfter ethical approval, all parturients receiving programmed intermittent epidural bolus labour analgesia between June 2013 and October 2014 were included in this prospective cohort study. Bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 ?g ml-1 was used allowing for patient-controlled bolus every 20 min. The maternal motor function (primary outcome) was regularly assessed from insertion of the epidural catheter until delivery.ResultsOf the 839 parturients included, 553 (66%) were nulliparous and 286 (34%) were parous. The parous women had a shorter median duration of epidural analgesia (3 h 59 min vs 5 h 45 min) and a higher incidence of spontaneous delivery (66% vs 37%). The probability of being in a certain Bromage category at birth was similar in nulliparous and parous women in a general additive model adjusting for duration of epidural analgesia, number of rescue top-ups, and number of catheter manipulations (cumulative odds ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.41). Parous women required a higher time-weighted number and volume of rescue top-ups.ConclusionsThe results of the randomised controlled trials on a reduced motor block with programmed intermittent epidural bolus seem generalisable to parturients typically not included in these trials.
| S-EPMC6676019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsDural puncture epidural (DPE) has been shown to improve labor analgesia over epidural (EPL), with fewer side effects than a combined spinal-epidural (CSE). However, there is some debate regarding the superiority of DPE over EPL and CSE. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of EPL, DPE, and CSE without intrathecal opioids on the epidural local anesthetic (LA) consumption and occurrence of side effects in early labor.Material and methodsWe randomly assigned parturient to one of the 3 groups; EPL, DPE, or CSE. EPL and DPE groups received a 10 mL loading dose of 0.1% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 μg/mL. CSE group received intrathecal 2.5 mg bupivacaine (without opioids). Labor analgesia was maintained in all patients via patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). The primary outcome was the mean hourly consumption of epidural LA.ResultsThe mean hourly consumption of epidural LA anesthetic was significantly lower in CSE (9.55 mL), compared with the EPL (11 mL), and DPE (10.5 mL), P < 0.01; but no significant difference was seen between EPL and DPE. Compared with EPL and DPE, CSE achieved faster time to complete analgesia defined as a numeric rating pain scale (NRPS) ≤1 and sensory block, lower NRPS in the first hour and higher frequencies of complete analgesia. There were no differences between groups in terms of physician top-up boluses, the occurrence of side-effects, mode of delivery, Apgar scores, and maternal satisfaction.ConclusionCompared with EPL and DPE, CSE without intrathecal opioids, had a less epidural LA consumption, faster onset of analgesia, with no difference in the incidence of side effects.Trial registrationThis study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03980951).
| S-EPMC8289667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of epidural analgesia (EA) in pancreatic surgery remains under debate. This study compares patients treated with EA versus non-EA after open pancreatectomy in a tertiary referral center.MethodsAll patients undergoing open pancreatectomy from 2013 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. (Non-)EA was terminated on postoperative day (POD) 3 or earlier if required.ResultsIn total, 190 (72.5%) patients received EA and 72 (27.5%) patients received non-EA (mostly intravenous morphine). EA was terminated prematurely in 32.6% of patients and non-EA in 10.5% of patients. Compared with non-EA patients, EA patients had significantly lower pain scores on POD 0 (1.10 (0-3.00) versus 3.00 (1.67-5.00), P?<?0.001) and POD 1 (2.00 (0.50-3.41) versus 3.00 (2.00-3.80), P?=?0.001), though significantly higher pain scores on POD 3 (3.00 (2.00-4.00) versus 2.33 (1.50-4.00), P?<?0.001) and POD 4 (2.50 (1.50-3.67) versus 2.00 (0.50-3.00), P?=?0.007). EA patients required more vasoactive medication perioperatively and had higher cumulative fluid balances on POD 1-3. Postoperative complications were similar between groups.ConclusionsIn our cohort, patients with EA experienced significantly lower pain scores in the first PODs compared with non-EA, yet higher pain scores after EA had been terminated. Although EA patients required more vasoactive medication and fluid therapy, the complication rate was similar.
| S-EPMC6877489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe epidural pressure is pulsatile and synchronized with arterial pulsations. Monitoring the epidural waveform has been suggested as a technique to reliably confirm the appropriate localization of the epidural catheter.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the Computer Controlled Drug Delivery System with continuous pressure and waveform sensing technology (CCDDS) (CompuFlo® CathCheck™) as an instrument to assess the correct placement of the catheter in the epidural space in parturients who have received combined spinal-epidural technique (CSE) for labor analgesia.MethodsWe enrolled 40 consecutive healthy patients undergoing CSE labor analgesia with successful analgesia. All the cases in which pulsatile waveforms in synchrony with heart rate were detected were considered to be true positives; all the cases in which there was the absence of pulsatile waves were followed up. If these patients had to eventually relocate or manipulate the epidural catheter, they were considered to be true negative. If the absence of pulse waves was observed in the presence of successful analgesia during labor, the patients were considered to be false negatives.ResultsPulsatile waveforms synchronous with heart rate were observed in 33 cases associated with adequate analgesia. In 5 cases, the pulsatile waveforms were absent due to unilateral analgesia or catheter occlusion (true negatives). In 2 cases, the patients had effective analgesia but we were not able to observe a distinct pulsatile waveform. The pressure waveform analysis through the epidural catheter had a sensitivity of 95%, a positive predictive value of 100%, a specificity of 100% and a negative predictive value of 60%.ConclusionPulsatile pressure waveform recording with CCDDS through the epidural catheter resulted in high sensitivity and positive predictive value which can help the proper placement of the epidural catheter.
| S-EPMC8216732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A total of 651 cases of leprosy were hospitalised from Jan 1987 to Dec 1992. Each patient underwent haemogram, total and differential white cell count, urinalysis, liver function tests, skin slit smear for AFB and skin biopsy. Nerve conduction studies, electomyographic studies and nerve/nerve sheath biopsies were undertaken as and when indicated. These patients were managed with multidrug therapy. Paucibacillary (PB) leprosy accounted for 476 (73.1%) cases which comprised of indeterminate leprosy 90 (13.8%), tuberculoid leprosy 14 (2.2%), borderline tuberculoid leprosy 310 (47.6%) and neuritic leprosy 62 (9.5%). The remaining 175 patients (26.9%) were multibacillary (MB) which included borderline leprosy 9 (1.4%), borderline lepromatous leprosy 129 (19.8%) and lepromatous leprosy 37 (5.7%) patients. There were total 153 patients in 1987. This number declined to 44 in 1992. PB declined from 113 in 1987 to 39 in 1992 and MB cases from 40 to 5.
| S-EPMC5529772 | biostudies-other
Project description:Iodine deficiency is the most commonly implicated nutritional factor responsible for preventable mental deficiency in India and the world. The Government of India aims to control this through the supply of Iodised salt as the primary intervention strategy. Monitoring of the salt supplied, therefore becomes essential to ensure quality control. This study undertaken to assess the status of Iodised salt in the Armed Forces in the Pune-Kirkee complex found a great variation in the iodine content ranging from 10.6 ppm to 150.1 ppm. High levels of Iodine are potentially harmful. This calls for stringent quality assurance and monitoring as a cost effective long term measure in the Armed Forces.
| S-EPMC5531857 | biostudies-other